Comments (0)

Beyond 2015 final evaluationPrepared by an independent consultantWhat we evaluated?Why we evaluate? Successes and failuresLessons learned and recommendationsBeyond 2015 interviewsMembers questionnaireLiteraturereviewParticipatory meetingA FULL EVALUATIONDeep and meaningful input from all over the worldStructure, governance, management and partnershipsFinancesMonitoring and reportingThreats to our legacyEffectiveness and impact in achieving our goals''Beyond 2015 fully achieved its goals''''Beyond 2015 fully achieved its goals''Advocacy successes UN officials and MS seem to have genuinely welcomed and thoroughly considered the inputs of the campaign

Global, regional and nationalStronger at global levelWeak in most regions, except Europe and Africa

Should partners have been observers on Ex Com? Should partner calls have been more regular / structured?Interviews withadvocacy targetsTo help future global campaigns effectively influence international decision-making processes

To help understand how CSOs, particularly from developing and emerging economies, experienced participation in the campaign - and how this influenced their participation in the post-2015 intergovernmental processNew voices introducedSHORTCOMINGSInitial dominance of Northern CSOsAbsence of synergies / clear relationships with other campaignsNew voices vs. expertise?Advocacy shortcomings...1. Lack of direct participation in the negotiations of those living in poverty2. Global->regional->national loop - did we do enough?4. Monitoring and review chapter of the Agenda5. SDGs vs. FfD6. Not counterbalancing the continued focus on sustained economic growth Fundraising effortsDonor mixDonor Coordination GroupWeaknessesWeak fundraising strategy at startRisk of gov funding an advocacy campaignLow CSO contributions, both financial and human resources (fundraisg departments)Decentralized modelEmpoweringTargeted funding to Southern members at national levelFlexible funds for Soutern leadershipShortcomingsLack of Exec Com engagement in decisionsLack of funds for regional activitiesDelays in approval of budgets and disbursements, and bureacracy in hosts.ReportingExit strategy and threatsShould have done the wind down phase much betterTwo main threats1. Fragmentation in the implementation of Agenda 2030 at the national level2. Loss of an effective structure for efficient collaboration and coordinationTo facilitate civil society collaboration and engagementKey regional findingsAsia: + Creation/expansion of CSO networks & strengthening national coalitions- Limited regional leadership, leading to absence of regional positions & difficult engagement with regional bodies (e.g. UNESCAP)Co-chairs+ Gratitude+ North / South+ Mid term elections- Lack of visibility and leadership- Poor selection processWell managed, empowering its staffAdvocacy DirectorN/S not important?Key recommendations Member organisationsEngage actively in discussions on possible successor initiativesDiscuss opportunities for synergies and collaboration with the UN Major Groups SystemTools and approachesQuestions to considerKeep funds for Southern leadership at the national level and flexible funds for Southern leadership on the Exec Com. Be less worried about having secretariat or secretariat based in the global south.Region / nationalTHE IMPORTANCE

UN quote: “the regional will emerge more clearly in the implementation phase so it should be an important level in future campaigns. It (the regional level) will turn into a venue where countries are among peers and will feel more comfortable with exposing the challenges and learning lessons.”

MS quotation re HLPF: “regional reviews must become a bridging mechanism between different levels of action.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Improve selection processes at both levels. Better monitoring - not just written reports. Visits?Better enable cross fertilization across regions and countries (thorough thinking, budget, plans, tools)Empower Steering Committees - consider how. ToRs? Individual / organisational responsibility?Official allocation of regional portfolios among Executive Committee membersBetter consider the structures and arrangements for line management / supervision by the secretariat Advocacy or mobilisation?Northern dominationMore regular and digestible updates, to identify and share good practices.We lacked a comprehensive mechanism for M+E of use of funds at national level “We should have cut the time we spent in trying to engage with those with whom there was no shared understanding and invested more quality time in planning how to maximise the 3 key partnerships we finally concluded with the 3 organisations with whom we had things in common.”Policy + advocacy expertise on climate changeLegitimacyUnderstanding the interface between climate-based and social policiesRegional and nationallimited funds dedicatedlack of awareness of overlapping membershipsRegional Coordinators not in same countriesLack of focus on capacity building? An 'ambassador' to liaise with lead agencies? Question - clarity of focus / expectations?Structural inefficiencies?

lack of specific regional strategieschanges in regional coordinators colleagues were not dedicated full time to the Post-2015 processdual reporting unclear (to regional coordinators and to the IFP)Difficulties in 2011 + 2012! Complex, time consuming, too difficult to agree strategic synergies with all.Ended up with the 'right' partnerships, based on trust, friendship and shared common ground Partnerships helped Beyond 2015 in the following areas: policy, advocacy, research, legitimacy and fundraisingPartnerships not maximised, nor did they fully meet expectations - but what would have happened without?Deficiencies in choice of activities/tasks for partners and the approaches to operationalize themRoom for improvement in the overall coordination of regional coordinators Should the coordination of regional coordinators have resided in the Secretariat?One of the main drawbacks of campaign was not enabling enough direct participation of those living in poverty and exclusion.Disengagement of Participate once its research and budgetary provision ended, contribution much less clear in later stage of campaign.

●High quality researchIncreased the legitimacy of Beyond 2015Strengthened policy and advocacySome evidence that it brought perspectives of the poorest into the debateA comprehensive processPacific

Moving ahead of other regions to keep pace with the EU...Latin America

+ Helping CSOs understand how the global process could have a local impact- English language barrier- Difficult regional coordination for numerous reasons including different CSO capacity, weak regional institutionsAfrica

+ Coordination of a Common African Position -> engagement in the African Union- Poor mobilisation in Francophone countriesInternational Forum of National NGO Platforms